I recently watched the movie Adventureland. No it's not one of the worst movies, it's actually pretty good. But I hated the ending and it nearly ruins the movie. Other than that, the cast was great. The main actress in the movie is Kristen Stewart, who is one of my favorite young actors currently. Yup, for serious.

That brings me to this thread. K. Stew is probably one of the most hated actresses that I hear about. I think that's unfair. Watch her in Panic Room, Into The Wild, The Runaways, and Adventureland. She's got a few duds, no doubt, but most of her roles, though not great, are suited to the character and a solid performance. Most people just hate her because of Twilight.

I'm also a Twilight apologist. Hear me out. The script sucks, yeah, and that can ruin a movie. But it's Twilight. It can't be helped. The direction is hit and miss, which means that at best it does get it right about half the time. The CGI is horrid and it ruins what is actually a pretty good job of stunts, practical effects and sets. The cinematography is fine, and the acting is not bad, honestly.

The movies aren't good, but they aren't the worst movies ever. They are merely mediocre for the most part, which puts them on the level of many other movies that are far less panned. I think that people hate the idea of Twilight more than the actual movies._________________Spread out all around us is a petrified world, a world of Things, where we ourselves, our gestures, and even our feelings figure in as Things. Nothing can belong to us as truly our own in such a landscape of death. Under commodity occupation the most concrete truth about everything is the truth of it's infinite replaceablity.

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:41 am

Message

Caedus_16Master

Joined: 15 Apr 2008Posts: 5438Location: Korriban

Dog-Poop_Walker wrote:

I'm also a Twilight apologist. Hear me out. The script sucks, yeah, and that can ruin a movie. But it's Twilight. It can't be helped. The direction is hit and miss, which means that at best it does get it right about half the time. The CGI is horrid and it ruins what is actually a pretty good job of stunts, practical effects and sets. The cinematography is fine, and the acting is not bad, honestly.

The movies aren't good, but they aren't the worst movies ever. They are merely mediocre for the most part, which puts them on the level of many other movies that are far less panned. I think that people hate the idea of Twilight more than the actual movies.

Its less the idea of it and more the execution. Sparkly vampires, werewolves with no acting ability (I could see the others having some talent outside the franchise but Lautner is just awful) and the advantage it takes of the lonely and desperate.

The author of the franchise has admitted that she has written it so that sad, lonely, desperate women can slide into the role of the main character and use it to find the perfect men slobbering after her like dogs because until the films there was no visual of the female lead, just a vague description. Kirsten Stewart put no effort into the one Twilight film I was able to sit through (hint - It was the first one) and the fact that she was clearly doing it for the paycheck was the rough part. With the films its that the story is awful (can they make me care about one character, is it too much to ask?), the acting is hammy at best, and there are next to no visuals that make me feel like the movie is the least bit necessary. I can't even enjoy it as kitsch.

They'll reboot it in a few years and maybe it won't suck at that point, but until then I consider it a waste of a screen in each theatre it plays in._________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:23 am

Message

Dog-Poop_WalkerMaster

Joined: 28 Jan 2012Posts: 1743Location: Simulation and Simulacra

My point was that Twilight is a stupid story based on a badly written book, so there can never really be a good movie of it so long as it sticks to the source material. And that isn't the movies fault.

Sure we can say that it should not be a movie, but people like it and there is money to be made so that was never really something that could not happen. I don't see a lot of talented people jumping on a reboot, but I guess it's possible someday.

The first movie is by far the worst in the series. It does get slightly better. The second one is the best IMO and it's a decent movie, for a supernatural teen romance, that is. The third movie is less good, but it's still not the worst, second worst. The fourth movie is pretty alright, just below number 2. It mostly suffers from being unnecessarily split in half. I haven't seen the last one, so I can't comment on it.

I know that some people won't like hearing this, but I see a lot of parallels to the Harry Potter films and Twilight. Not in terms of book adaptations or the story itself, but from a film standpoint. I think Twilight took a lot of inspiration from the HP movies, and that trend in Cinema has been a mostly bad one starting with Twilight and continuing with worse movies, like Hunger Games. Both were movies that were made mostly for fans of the books and less for the general movie audiences._________________Spread out all around us is a petrified world, a world of Things, where we ourselves, our gestures, and even our feelings figure in as Things. Nothing can belong to us as truly our own in such a landscape of death. Under commodity occupation the most concrete truth about everything is the truth of it's infinite replaceablity.

Last edited by Dog-Poop_Walker on Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:35 am; edited 2 times in total

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:31 am

Message

Caedus_16Master

Joined: 15 Apr 2008Posts: 5438Location: Korriban

Dog-Poop_Walker wrote:

My point was that Twilight is a stupid story based on a badly written book, so there can never really be a good movie of it so long as it sticks to the source material. And that isn't the movies fault.

Sure we can say that it should not be a movie, but people like it and there is money to be made so that was never really something that could not happen. I don't see a lot of talented people jumping on a reboot, but I guess it's possible someday.

The first movie is by far the worst in the series. It does get slightly better. The second one is the best IMO and it's a decent movie, for a supernatural teen romance, that is. The third movie is less good, but it's still not the worst, second worst. The fourth movie is pretty alright, just below number 2. It mostly suffers from being unnecessarily split in half. I haven't seen the last one, so I can't comment on it.

Honestly all of that didn't make me want to watch it anymore than I already did, which was not at all lol_________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:00 am

Message

Jedi JoeMaster

Joined: 11 Jun 2009Posts: 1660

Caedus_16 wrote:

They'll reboot it in a few years and maybe it won't suck at that point, but until then I consider it a waste of a screen in each theatre it plays in.

But DP Walker has a point.
You can't make a good movie when your source material sucks. For me the story is 50% of a movie.

And slaughter me if you will for this, but I could never bring myself to go beyond the first Harry Potter movie (or the second, I can't remember and do not care). To read a book after that. Not gonna happen. I doubt that the movie guys ruined it all.

I think Twilight took a lot of inspiration from the HP movies, and that trend in Cinema has been a mostly bad one starting with Twilight and continuing with worse movies, like Hunger Games. Both were movies that were made mostly for fans of the books and less for the general movie audiences.

Hang on, Walker, am I reading you correctly that you think The Hunger Games was worse than Twilight?

And Hogy, that's a shame, man, because the first two Potter movies are generally considered the weakest, due to the fact that the books are the shortest and most childish of the series._________________All things die, Anakin Skywalker, even stars burn out.

Those without swords can still die upon them

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:25 am

Message

Dog-Poop_WalkerMaster

Joined: 28 Jan 2012Posts: 1743Location: Simulation and Simulacra

Queen Padmè Skywalker wrote:

Hang on, Walker, am I reading you correctly that you think The Hunger Games was worse than Twilight?

And Hogy, that's a shame, man, because the first two Potter movies are generally considered the weakest, due to the fact that the books are the shortest and most childish of the series.

No, I meant it was worse than Harry Potter. I see how it comes off that way because I added it in for an example after I typed the sentence out.

I disagree with the first two HP's being the worst. I think the second one is one of the better ones. Order of the Phoenix to me is the worst, both the movie and the book, and the last movie, particularity the second part follows. The Half Blood Prince and Goblet of Fire are the best, and the first and Prisoner fall into the middle._________________Spread out all around us is a petrified world, a world of Things, where we ourselves, our gestures, and even our feelings figure in as Things. Nothing can belong to us as truly our own in such a landscape of death. Under commodity occupation the most concrete truth about everything is the truth of it's infinite replaceablity.

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 9:27 am

Message

Luke92Knight

Joined: 19 May 2011Posts: 367Location: England

I thought Half Blood Prince was the worst Harry Potter film, threw aside and heavily cut down the main two story lines in the book so we could have 2 hours of horny teenagers trying to sort out their love lives. Order Of The Phoenix wasn't brilliant either, way too much cut out. Chamber Of Secrets and Prisoner Of Azkaban were the best in my opinion, with The Deathly Hallows not far behind._________________Hear me now
Words I vow
No f****** regrets
F*** these chains
No damn slave
I will be different!

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:15 pm

Message

ReepicheepMaster

Joined: 05 Feb 2008Posts: 7925Location: Sailing into the unknown

I've only seen the first four Potter movies, but I thought The Hunger Games was a significantly better movie than any of them._________________
Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.

Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:36 pm

Message

Caedus_16Master

Joined: 15 Apr 2008Posts: 5438Location: Korriban

I loved Half Blood Prince, that was the best of the movies for me.

Hunger Games fell short of an only ok book.

With the Twilight thing a movie sucking because its source material sucks is no excuse, its not worth participating in either way._________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.

Hang on, Walker, am I reading you correctly that you think The Hunger Games was worse than Twilight?

And Hogy, that's a shame, man, because the first two Potter movies are generally considered the weakest, due to the fact that the books are the shortest and most childish of the series.

No, I meant it was worse than Harry Potter. I see how it comes off that way because I added it in for an example after I typed the sentence out.

I disagree with the first two HP's being the worst. I think the second one is one of the better ones. Order of the Phoenix to me is the worst, both the movie and the book, and the last movie, particularity the second part follows. The Half Blood Prince and Goblet of Fire are the best, and the first and Prisoner fall into the middle.

Ah, I see. I know that Order is not much beloved, but it's actually my favorite of the books and I'm also fond of the movie. The Deathly Hallows films are my favorite of the film series, though. I agree with Luke that Half Blood Prince was lacking, partly because they shoehorned stuff from Order in there. Also, what they did to Ginny enrages me._________________All things die, Anakin Skywalker, even stars burn out.